Elizabeth Waters

BACKGROUND: Prevention of childhood obesity is an international public health priority given the significant impact of obesity on acute and chronic diseases, general health, development and well-being. The international evidence base for strategies that governments, communities and families can implement to prevent obesity, and promote health, has been accumulating but remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This review primarily aims to update the previous Cochrane review of childhood obesity prevention research and determine the effectiveness of evaluated interventions intended to prevent obesity in children, assessed by change in Body Mass Index (BMI). Secondary aims were to examine the characteristics of the programs and strategies to answer the questions "What works for whom, why and for what cost?" SEARCH METHODS: The searches were re-run in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL in March 2010 and searched relevant websites. Non-English language papers were included and experts were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: The review includes data from childhood obesity prevention studies that used a controlled study design (with or without randomisation). Studies were included if they evaluated interventions, policies or programs in place for twelve weeks or more. If studies were randomised at a cluster level, 6 clusters were required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data was extracted on intervention implementation, cost, equity and outcomes. Outcome measures were grouped according to whether they measured adiposity, physical activity (PA)-related behaviours or diet-related behaviours. Adverse outcomes were recorded. A meta-analysis was conducted using available BMI or standardised BMI (zBMI) score data with subgroup analysis by age group (0-5, 6-12, 13-18 years, corresponding to stages of developmental and childhood settings). MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 55 studies (an additional 36 studies found for this update). The majority of studies targeted children aged 6-12 years. The meta-analysis included 37 studies of 27,946 children and demonstrated that programmes were effective at reducing adiposity, although not all individual interventions were effective, and there was a high level of observed heterogeneity (I(2)=82%). Overall, children in the intervention group had a standardised mean difference in adiposity (measured as BMI or zBMI) of -0.15kg/m(2) (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.21 to -0.09). Intervention effects by age subgroups were -0.26kg/m(2) (95% CI:-0.53 to 0.00) (0-5 years), -0.15kg/m(2) (95% CI -0.23 to -0.08) (6-12 years), and -0.09kg/m(2) (95% CI -0.20 to 0.03) (13-18 years). Heterogeneity was apparent in all three age groups and could not explained by randomisation status or the type, duration or setting of the intervention. Only eight studies reported on adverse effects and no evidence of adverse outcomes such as unhealthy dieting practices, increased prevalence of underweight or body image sensitivities was found. Interventions did not appear to increase health inequalities although this was examined in fewer studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence to support beneficial effects of child obesity prevention programmes on BMI, particularly for programmes targeted to children aged six to 12 years. However, given the unexplained heterogeneity and the likelihood of small study bias, these findings must be interpreted cautiously. A broad range of programme components were used in these studies and whilst it is not possible to distinguish which of these components contributed most to the beneficial effects observed, our synthesis indicates the following to be promising policies and strategies:· school curriculum that includes healthy eating, physical activity and body image· increased sessions for physical activity and the development of fundamental movement skills throughout the school week· improvements in nutritional quality of the food supply in schools· environments and cultural practices that support children eating healthier foods and being active throughout each day· support for teachers and other staff to implement health promotion strategies and activities (e.g. professional development, capacity building activities)· parent support and home activities that encourage children to be more active, eat more nutritious foods and spend less time in screen based activitiesHowever, study and evaluation designs need to be strengthened, and reporting extended to capture process and implementation factors, outcomes in relation to measures of equity, longer term outcomes, potential harms and costs.Childhood obesity prevention research must now move towards identifying how effective intervention components can be embedded within health, education and care systems and achieve long term sustainable impacts.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of childhood obesity is an international public health priority given the significant impact of obesity on acute and chronic diseases, general health, development and well-being. The international evidence base for strategies that governments, communities and families can implement to prevent obesity, and promote health, has been accumulating but remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This review primarily aims to update the previous Cochrane review of childhood obesity prevention research and determine the effectiveness of evaluated interventions intended to prevent obesity in children, assessed by change in Body Mass Index (BMI). Secondary aims were to examine the characteristics of the programs and strategies to answer the questions "What works for whom, why and for what cost?" SEARCH METHODS: The searches were re-run in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL in March 2010 and searched relevant websites. Non-English language papers were included and experts were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: The review includes data from childhood obesity prevention studies that used a controlled study design (with or without randomisation). Studies were included if they evaluated interventions, policies or programs in place for twelve weeks or more. If studies were randomized at a cluster level, six clusters were required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data was extracted on intervention implementation, cost, equity and outcomes. Outcome measures were grouped according to whether they measured adiposity, physical activity (PA)-related behaviours or diet-related behaviours. Adverse outcomes were recorded. A meta-analysis was conducted using available BMI or standardized BMI (zBMI) score data with subgroup analysis by age group (0-5, 6-12, 13-18 years, corresponding to stages of developmental and childhood settings). MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 55 studies (an additional 36 studies found for this update). The majority of studies targeted children aged v 6-12 years. The meta-analysis included 37 studies of 27,946 children and demonstrated that programmes were effective at reducing adiposity, although not all individual interventions were effective, and there was a high level of observed heterogeneity (I2 = 82%). Overall, children in the intervention group had a standardised mean difference in adiposity (measured as BMI or zBMI) of -0.15 kg/m2 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.21 to -0.09). Intervention effects by age subgroups were -0.26kg/m2 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.00) (0- 5 years), - 0.15 kg/m2 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.08) (6-12 years), and -0.09 kg/m2 (95% C I -0.20 to 0.03) (13-18 years). Heterogeneity was apparent in all three age groups and could not explained by randomisation status or the type, duration or setting of the intervention. Only eight studies reported on adverse effects and no evidence of adverse outcomes such as unhealthy dieting practices, increased prevalence of underweight or body image sensitivities was found. Interventions did not appear to increase health inequalities although this was examined in fewer studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence to support beneficial effects of child obesity prevention programmes on BMI, particularly for programmes targeted to children aged six to 12 years. However, given the unexplained heterogeneity and the likelihood of small study bias, these findings must be interpreted cautiously. A broad range of programme components were used in these studies and whilst it is not possible to distinguish which of these components contributed most to the beneficial effects observed, our synthesis indicates the following to be promising policies and strategies: school curriculum that includes healthy eating, physical activity and body image; increased sessions for physical activity and the development of fundamental movement skills throughout the school week; improvements in nutritional quality of the food supply in schools; environments and cultural practices that support children eating healthier foods and being active throughout each day; support for teachers and other staff to implement health promotion strategies and activities (e.g. professional development, capacity building activities); parent support and home activities that encourage children to be more active, eat more nutritious foods and spend less time in screen based activities. However, study and evaluation designs need to be strengthened, and reporting extended to capture process and implementation factors, outcomes in relation to measures of equity, longer term outcomes, potential harms and costs. Childhood obesity prevention research must now move towards identifying how effective intervention components can be embedded within health, education and care systems and achieve long term sustainable impacts.

Systematic reviews of public health interventions are fraught with challenges. Complexity is inherent; this may be due to multi-component interventions, diverse study populations, multiple outcomes measured, mixed study designs utilized and the effect of context on intervention design, implementation and effectiveness. For policy makers and practitioners to use systematic reviews to implement effective public health programmes, systematic reviews must include this information, which seeks to answer the questions posed by decision makers, including recipients of programmes. This necessitates expanding the traditional evaluation of evidence to incorporate the assessment of theory, integrity of interventions, context and sustainability of the interventions and outcomes. Unfortunately however, the critical information required for judging both the quality of a public health intervention and whether or not an intervention is worthwhile or replicable is missing from most public health intervention studies. When the raw material is not available in primary studies the systematic review process becomes even more challenging. Systematic reviews, which highlight these critical gaps, may act to encourage better reporting in primary studies. This paper provides recommendations to reviewers on the issues to address within a public health systematic review and, indirectly, provides advice to researchers on the reporting requirements of primary studies for the production of high quality systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Children's exposure to other people's cigarette smoke (environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS) is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes for children. Parental smoking is a common source of children's exposure to ETS. Older children are also at risk of exposure to ETS in child care or educational settings. Preventing exposure to cigarette smoke in infancy and childhood has significant potential to improve children's health worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce exposure of children to ETS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and conducted additional searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and The Social Science Citation Index & Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). Date of the most recent search: September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials with or without random allocation. Interventions must have addressed participants (parents and other family members, child care workers and teachers) involved with the care and education of infants and young children (aged 0 to 12 years). All mechanisms for reduction of children's ETS exposure, and smoking prevention, cessation, and control programmes were included. These include health promotion, social-behavioural therapies, technology, education, and clinical interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies and extracted data. Due to heterogeneity of methodologies and outcome measures, no summary measures were possible and results were synthesised narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies were judged to be at low risk of bias, 27 studies were judged to have unclear overall risk of bias and 23 studies were judged to have high risk of bias. Seven interventions were targeted at populations or community settings, 23 studies were conducted in the 'well child' healthcare setting and 24 in the 'ill child' healthcare setting. Two further studies conducted in paediatric clinics did not make clear whether the visits were to well or ill children, and another included both well and ill child visits. Thirty-six studies were from North America, 14 were in other high income countries and seven studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In only 14 of the 57 studies was there a statistically significant intervention effect for child ETS exposure reduction. Of these 14 studies, six used objective measures of children's ETS exposure. Eight of the studies had a high risk of bias, four had unclear risk of bias and two had a low risk of bias. The studies showing a significant effect used a range of interventions: seven used intensive counselling or motivational interviewing; a further study used telephone counselling; one used a school-based strategy; one used picture books; two used educational home visits; one used brief intervention and one study did not describe the intervention. Of the 42 studies that did not show a significant reduction in child ETS exposure, 14 used more intensive counselling or motivational interviewing, nine used brief advice or counselling, six used feedback of a biological measure of children's ETS exposure, one used feedback of maternal cotinine, two used telephone smoking cessation advice or support, eight used educational home visits, one used group sessions, one used an information kit and letter, one used a booklet and no smoking sign, and one used a school-based policy and health promotion. In 32 of the 57 studies, there was reduction of ETS exposure for children in the study irrespective of assignment to intervention and comparison groups. One study did not aim to reduce children's tobacco smoke exposure, but rather aimed to reduce symptoms of asthma, and found a significant reduction in symptoms in the group exposed to motivational interviewing. We found little evidence of difference in effectiveness of interventions between the well infant, child respiratory illness, and other child illness settings as contexts for parental smoking cessation interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While brief counselling interventions have been identified as successful for adults when delivered by physicians, this cannot be extrapolated to adults as parents in child health settings. Although several interventions, including parental education and counselling programmes, have been used to try to reduce children's tobacco smoke exposure, their effectiveness has not been clearly demonstrated. The review was unable to determine if any one intervention reduced parental smoking and child exposure more effectively than others, although seven studies were identified that reported motivational interviewing or intensive counselling provided in clinical settings was effective.

BACKGROUND: Despite the fact that it is largely preventable, dental caries (decay) remains one of the most common chronic diseases of early childhood. Dental decay in young children frequently leads to pain and infection necessitating hospitalization for dental extractions under general anaesthesia. Dental problems in early childhood have been shown to be predictive of not only future dental problems but also on growth and cognitive development by interfering with comfort nutrition, concentration and school participation. OBJECTIVE: To review the current evidence base in relation to the aetiology and prevention of dental caries in preschool-aged children. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, CINALH and Cochrane electronic databases was conducted using a search strategy which restricted the search to randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, clinical trials, systematic reviews and other quasi-experimental designs. The retrieved studies were then limited to articles including children aged 5 years and under and published in English. The evidence of effectiveness was then summarized by the authors. CONCLUSIONS: The review highlighted the complex aetiology of early childhood caries (ECC). Contemporary evidence suggests that potentially effective interventions should occur in the first 2 years of a child's life. Dental attendance before the age of 2 years is uncommon; however, contact with other health professionals is high. Primary care providers who have contact with children well before the age of the first dental visit may be well placed to offer anticipatory advice to reduce the incidence of ECC.